Day Thirty-Five - God's Power in Your Weakness
With the current chapter Mr. Warren concludes his discussion of what he considers to be the fourth purpose of human life - to serve. These commentaries have shown Mr. Warren’s fourth purpose to be in essential conflict with his third purpose. According to his third purpose, the whole of human life is to be devoted to character development in preparation for a role in eternity. According to his fourth purpose, eternity has prepared each one with unique gifts and abilities so the whole of human life may be devoted to making an utterly unique contribution. True concepts of discipleship and ministry are not in conflict with one another, but are integrally related in a unified system of Christian truth. Thus, the inner conflicts of a system prove that its elements cannot be rightly construed. Mr. Warren’s misconception of service is demonstrated most dramatically in the current chapter. Just as his idea of ministry has no systematic consistency with his idea of discipleship, so neither does it have any internal consistency.
Earlier in his discussion of ministry, Mr. Warren advanced the notion of the utterly unique individual, who is suited to make an utterly unique contribution, which, if any individual fails to make, then it will not be made. (p. 241) On the basis of such a notion he confidently declared that, “God will never ask you to dedicate your life to a task you have no talent for…God doesn’t waste abilities, he matches our calling and our capabilities.” (p. 243-244) This unique contribution is to be pursued, he assured us, according to our “SHAPE,” which he says is our unique set of gifts, passion, and abilities. God “…wants you to focus on talents he has given you to use,” he declares, and cautions, “when you attempt to serve God in ways you’re not shaped to serve, it feels like forcing a square peg into a round hole.” (p. 249) But, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since those discussions. In order to compensate his unbiblical and untenable idea of “SHAPE,” Mr. Warren advanced his equally unbiblical and untenable idea of the “real servant.” After assuring us on page 249 that, “The best use of your life is to serve God out of your shape,” he later declared on page 258 that being a “real servant” is more important than knowing your “SHAPE” and that, “God often tests our hearts by asking us to serve in ways we’re not shaped.” The result of this new emphasis is to leave us where things stand in the current chapter, which is a complete reversal of his position at the outset of this discussion six chapters ago.
At first, his emphasis was upon our abilities. “God has a place in his church where your abilities can shine and you can make a difference,” he told us. (p. 243) “What I’m able to do, God wants me to do,” he stressed. (p. 243) Now, his message is, “God loves to use weak people.” (p. 272) Mr. Warren could not paint a completely comprehensive picture of human ability signaling the call of God. Compensating for the shortcomings of such a view, he now has come to a contrary position that not only glorifies human weakness, but also goes so far as to disparage human ability. He says, “Our strengths create competition, but our weaknesses create community.” (p. 277) At one point Mr. Warren advised us to pursue our strengths because he considered ability as a natural pointer to God’s calling. Now he is telling us that strength is a liability and that we ought to “glory in your weakness.” (p. 277) However, neither can he paint a completely comprehensive picture of human weakness signaling the call of God. Let us press on to evaluate Mr. Warren’s idea of the nature and significance of human weakness.
Mr. Warren seems drawn to paradox. For him, the power of God is particularly exhibited in human weakness. Consequently, he makes much of Paul’s comments regarding a “thorn in the flesh” in II Corinthians 12. Mr. Warren declares, “A weakness, or a ‘thorn’ as Paul called it, is not a sin or a vice or a character defect that you can change, such as overeating or impatience. A weakness is any limitation that you inherited or have no power to change.” (p. 273) Surely, Paul referred to his weakness as a “thorn,” however, in the very same breath he also referred to it as a “messenger of Satan.” Also, in biblical imagery the “thorn” universally is a symbol of evil. The thorn is a major aspect of God’s curse on the earth because of our sin. (Gen. 3:18) Mr. Warren wishes to present an idea of weakness that has nothing to do with sin. However, a truly biblical idea of weakness has everything to do with sin. For Mr. Warren a weakness is simply a “limitation,” and he assures us with his characteristic jingoism that, “God is not limited by our limitations.” (p. 273) The irony is that only five sentences later he intones, “God will use us if we allow him to work through our weaknesses.” (p. 273) For Mr. Warren, God never is limited by our limitations, but evidently God is limited by our will. As he said also on the facing page, that our attempting to suppress our weaknesses “…prevents God from using them in the way he desires.” (p. 272) He suggests that God can do anything He pleases, but only if we “allow” Him to do it!
In discussion of weakness it is important for us to grasp the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian idea of weakness. In the non-Christian view, Man is not the creation of God, and therefore Man’s current state reflects what he always has been. Hence, for the unbeliever, weaknesses are ingrained in his basic nature. Contrary to this, the Christian admits that Man is the creature of God, made in His image, and made originally “very good.” (Gen. 1:31) The Christian admits further that Man fell into sin from his state of original goodness, and as a result the integrity of his being, in all of its attributes, was corrupted. (Gen. 3:17-19) This means that we must assess weakness on two different levels. There is what may be called “weakness” of one person’s skill or ability vs. another person. One person’s athletic ability may be considered weak in comparison to that of another person. This is a subjective idea of weakness. Distinct from this there also is “weakness” in the sense of defect. The term used in the New Testament: asthenes (and derivatives) has this latter meaning. Literally, it means without strength. Often it is translated sick or sickness. A sickness is a defect or a corruption of the human nature. This is an objective idea of weakness. A person who is sick is not weak in comparison with some and strong in comparison with others - he is weak in comparison with any healthy person and even in comparison with himself in a state of health. His sickness is weakness in comparison with an objective standard of health. In the non-Christian idea all weakness is subjective because all weakness is an aspect of the normal human nature. In the Christian idea weakness is at bottom objective. The essential concept of weakness involves defect, which arises from sin. Clearly, Mr. Warren’s idea of weakness aligns with the non-Christian view.
Whereas Mr. Warren relies heavily upon II Corinthians 12:7-10 in his effort to make his idea seem Christian, it will be most instructive to examine this text in depth. This text is a prime demonstration of the fact that “context” means something quite a bit larger than just the immediately surrounding verses. In order to understand correctly what Paul is getting at in chapter 12, one must pick up the discussion beginning as far back as chapter 10. In chapter 10 Paul provides the Corinthians with a defense of the harshness of his letters as compared to the unimpressiveness of his personal presence. This exercise entails some degree of what only may be regarded as boasting. This, further, necessitates a defense - or a theology - of boasting. He cites Jeremiah 9:24 and concludes, “For not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.” (II Cor. 10:18) Having made a case for his stature among them, Paul presses on in most delicate and diplomatic terms to warn the Corinthians of the “false apostles” (11:13) who had been capturing their attention in his absence. He announces to them at the outset that his is a course of “foolishness” (11:1). He pauses at various junctures to reiterate: “I am not speaking as the Lord would, but as in foolishness” (11:17); “I speak in foolishness” (11:21); “I speak as if insane” (11:23). Why speak to them in this manner? Why not forsake foolishness and insanity altogether? It was because of the boasting of the false apostles that the Corinthians were swayed toward them. These false teachers created a situation in which Paul could not denounce them and warn the Corinthians concerning them without appearing to enter into competition with them. Part of what Paul condemned in them was their boasting. How may he condemn them without exhibiting the very same offense that he condemned in them? How may he appeal for the Corinthians to return their devotion to his teaching without seeming to out-boast the others? “Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable,” he declared (12:1) It was necessary for him to counter the allure of the false apostles by re-asserting his authority among the Corinthians. This he could do only by recitation of his credentials, which only could be construed as boasting. However, Paul could not make a pure case for himself. Though he was caught up into heaven and beheld inexpressible revelations, still he was not a man of unadulterated purity. The false apostles might have presented themselves as flawless, but Paul could not. “If I have to boast,” he said, “I will boast of what pertains to my weakness.” (11:30) Plainly, he asserts that his “thorn in the flesh” was a “messenger of Satan” for the purpose of keeping him from exalting himself (12:7). Though it was his perfectly legitimate prayer for this “thorn” to be removed, the answer he received was that God’s grace was sufficient in the midst of this weakness. (12:9). God told him that “…power is perfected in weakness.” (12:9) Paul summarized the matter, “Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” (12:10)
What we must see in this first of all is the Christian idea of weakness. Paul classed weaknesses along with insults, distresses, persecutions, and difficulties. He expressed that it was his heart’s desire to be free of these things. The right-thinking person does not seek out such things and “glory” in them. Next, we then correctly may discern the Lord’s assertion that “power is perfected in weakness.” In terms of a non-Christian idea of weakness, such a statement declares the Yin and Yang give and take of mutually opposing - and mutually necessary - forces. This view holds that power has no existence apart from weakness, for apart from weakness power could not be known to be power. In terms of a Christian idea of weakness, this statement means something very different. The reason that God’s grace is sufficient is not because Paul’s weakness is a prerequisite for the reality of God’s power. God’s grace is sufficient because God’s power is omnipotent in the universe. The idea that God’s power is “perfected” in weakness means that weakness simply constitutes a further occasion of the exercise of His power. God’s power is at work in any case, just as it was in original creation, when everything was “very good.” The corruption of everything in sin cannot skew God’s power from His course or objective. Corruption simply constitutes an occasion for the greater exercise of power in overcoming a rebellion against God’s course and objective. This hardly makes weakness necessary for the realization of God’s will. Paul can say “when I am weak, then I am strong” as a concise expression of the truth that when weakness has neutralized the best that fallen human power may achieve, then accomplishment of God’s will may be credited only to the power of God’s grace at work in us.
The missing factor in Mr. Warren’s exposition is sin. This has been the missing factor from the beginning. If sin properly had been taken into account, Mr. Warren never would have suggested that we might look within ourselves, “listen to our hearts” (p. 237), and thereby discern what we might do in service to God. For, taking sin into account would have precluded natural ability and natural inclination being esteemed automatic indicators of godliness. Lacking this proper understanding, Mr. Warren attempted to make natural ability and natural inclination (he called it HEART) everything. But soon it became apparent that this was impractical, because if everyone is out following their HEART, it leaves no one to collect the trash or to stack the chairs. So, compensating for this discrepancy, he then suggested that weakness is everything instead. But here again the factor of sin is not taken into account. For Mr. Warren, weakness is simply a “limitation.” Now, instead of our abilities pointing the way to godly ministry, it is our weaknesses that point the way, and weakness is exhibited in pain and failure and hurt. If sin properly had been taken into account, Mr. Warren never would have declared, “Your greatest life messages and your most effective ministry will come out of your deepest hurts.” (p. 275) Properly taking sin into account would have shown weakness to be basically the consequence of defect. A truly biblical approach to these things views our natural abilities as God-given but corrupted in sin, and views our weaknesses as stemming from this same corruption. We cannot implicitly trust in our abilities or “listen to our heart.” Neither can we “glory in our weaknesses.” These ideas form a perpetual tension in which each requires the other (due to the irresolvable errors in each) and in which they never can be systematically united. The only systematically coherent outlook is the truly biblical Christian idea of God, the Creator, who made Man in His own image, and of Man, who fell into sin and corruption, and of redemption in Christ, in which our interests and abilities are redeemed through the power of His grace in our lives.
Earlier in his discussion of ministry, Mr. Warren advanced the notion of the utterly unique individual, who is suited to make an utterly unique contribution, which, if any individual fails to make, then it will not be made. (p. 241) On the basis of such a notion he confidently declared that, “God will never ask you to dedicate your life to a task you have no talent for…God doesn’t waste abilities, he matches our calling and our capabilities.” (p. 243-244) This unique contribution is to be pursued, he assured us, according to our “SHAPE,” which he says is our unique set of gifts, passion, and abilities. God “…wants you to focus on talents he has given you to use,” he declares, and cautions, “when you attempt to serve God in ways you’re not shaped to serve, it feels like forcing a square peg into a round hole.” (p. 249) But, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since those discussions. In order to compensate his unbiblical and untenable idea of “SHAPE,” Mr. Warren advanced his equally unbiblical and untenable idea of the “real servant.” After assuring us on page 249 that, “The best use of your life is to serve God out of your shape,” he later declared on page 258 that being a “real servant” is more important than knowing your “SHAPE” and that, “God often tests our hearts by asking us to serve in ways we’re not shaped.” The result of this new emphasis is to leave us where things stand in the current chapter, which is a complete reversal of his position at the outset of this discussion six chapters ago.
At first, his emphasis was upon our abilities. “God has a place in his church where your abilities can shine and you can make a difference,” he told us. (p. 243) “What I’m able to do, God wants me to do,” he stressed. (p. 243) Now, his message is, “God loves to use weak people.” (p. 272) Mr. Warren could not paint a completely comprehensive picture of human ability signaling the call of God. Compensating for the shortcomings of such a view, he now has come to a contrary position that not only glorifies human weakness, but also goes so far as to disparage human ability. He says, “Our strengths create competition, but our weaknesses create community.” (p. 277) At one point Mr. Warren advised us to pursue our strengths because he considered ability as a natural pointer to God’s calling. Now he is telling us that strength is a liability and that we ought to “glory in your weakness.” (p. 277) However, neither can he paint a completely comprehensive picture of human weakness signaling the call of God. Let us press on to evaluate Mr. Warren’s idea of the nature and significance of human weakness.
Mr. Warren seems drawn to paradox. For him, the power of God is particularly exhibited in human weakness. Consequently, he makes much of Paul’s comments regarding a “thorn in the flesh” in II Corinthians 12. Mr. Warren declares, “A weakness, or a ‘thorn’ as Paul called it, is not a sin or a vice or a character defect that you can change, such as overeating or impatience. A weakness is any limitation that you inherited or have no power to change.” (p. 273) Surely, Paul referred to his weakness as a “thorn,” however, in the very same breath he also referred to it as a “messenger of Satan.” Also, in biblical imagery the “thorn” universally is a symbol of evil. The thorn is a major aspect of God’s curse on the earth because of our sin. (Gen. 3:18) Mr. Warren wishes to present an idea of weakness that has nothing to do with sin. However, a truly biblical idea of weakness has everything to do with sin. For Mr. Warren a weakness is simply a “limitation,” and he assures us with his characteristic jingoism that, “God is not limited by our limitations.” (p. 273) The irony is that only five sentences later he intones, “God will use us if we allow him to work through our weaknesses.” (p. 273) For Mr. Warren, God never is limited by our limitations, but evidently God is limited by our will. As he said also on the facing page, that our attempting to suppress our weaknesses “…prevents God from using them in the way he desires.” (p. 272) He suggests that God can do anything He pleases, but only if we “allow” Him to do it!
In discussion of weakness it is important for us to grasp the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian idea of weakness. In the non-Christian view, Man is not the creation of God, and therefore Man’s current state reflects what he always has been. Hence, for the unbeliever, weaknesses are ingrained in his basic nature. Contrary to this, the Christian admits that Man is the creature of God, made in His image, and made originally “very good.” (Gen. 1:31) The Christian admits further that Man fell into sin from his state of original goodness, and as a result the integrity of his being, in all of its attributes, was corrupted. (Gen. 3:17-19) This means that we must assess weakness on two different levels. There is what may be called “weakness” of one person’s skill or ability vs. another person. One person’s athletic ability may be considered weak in comparison to that of another person. This is a subjective idea of weakness. Distinct from this there also is “weakness” in the sense of defect. The term used in the New Testament: asthenes (and derivatives) has this latter meaning. Literally, it means without strength. Often it is translated sick or sickness. A sickness is a defect or a corruption of the human nature. This is an objective idea of weakness. A person who is sick is not weak in comparison with some and strong in comparison with others - he is weak in comparison with any healthy person and even in comparison with himself in a state of health. His sickness is weakness in comparison with an objective standard of health. In the non-Christian idea all weakness is subjective because all weakness is an aspect of the normal human nature. In the Christian idea weakness is at bottom objective. The essential concept of weakness involves defect, which arises from sin. Clearly, Mr. Warren’s idea of weakness aligns with the non-Christian view.
Whereas Mr. Warren relies heavily upon II Corinthians 12:7-10 in his effort to make his idea seem Christian, it will be most instructive to examine this text in depth. This text is a prime demonstration of the fact that “context” means something quite a bit larger than just the immediately surrounding verses. In order to understand correctly what Paul is getting at in chapter 12, one must pick up the discussion beginning as far back as chapter 10. In chapter 10 Paul provides the Corinthians with a defense of the harshness of his letters as compared to the unimpressiveness of his personal presence. This exercise entails some degree of what only may be regarded as boasting. This, further, necessitates a defense - or a theology - of boasting. He cites Jeremiah 9:24 and concludes, “For not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.” (II Cor. 10:18) Having made a case for his stature among them, Paul presses on in most delicate and diplomatic terms to warn the Corinthians of the “false apostles” (11:13) who had been capturing their attention in his absence. He announces to them at the outset that his is a course of “foolishness” (11:1). He pauses at various junctures to reiterate: “I am not speaking as the Lord would, but as in foolishness” (11:17); “I speak in foolishness” (11:21); “I speak as if insane” (11:23). Why speak to them in this manner? Why not forsake foolishness and insanity altogether? It was because of the boasting of the false apostles that the Corinthians were swayed toward them. These false teachers created a situation in which Paul could not denounce them and warn the Corinthians concerning them without appearing to enter into competition with them. Part of what Paul condemned in them was their boasting. How may he condemn them without exhibiting the very same offense that he condemned in them? How may he appeal for the Corinthians to return their devotion to his teaching without seeming to out-boast the others? “Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable,” he declared (12:1) It was necessary for him to counter the allure of the false apostles by re-asserting his authority among the Corinthians. This he could do only by recitation of his credentials, which only could be construed as boasting. However, Paul could not make a pure case for himself. Though he was caught up into heaven and beheld inexpressible revelations, still he was not a man of unadulterated purity. The false apostles might have presented themselves as flawless, but Paul could not. “If I have to boast,” he said, “I will boast of what pertains to my weakness.” (11:30) Plainly, he asserts that his “thorn in the flesh” was a “messenger of Satan” for the purpose of keeping him from exalting himself (12:7). Though it was his perfectly legitimate prayer for this “thorn” to be removed, the answer he received was that God’s grace was sufficient in the midst of this weakness. (12:9). God told him that “…power is perfected in weakness.” (12:9) Paul summarized the matter, “Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” (12:10)
What we must see in this first of all is the Christian idea of weakness. Paul classed weaknesses along with insults, distresses, persecutions, and difficulties. He expressed that it was his heart’s desire to be free of these things. The right-thinking person does not seek out such things and “glory” in them. Next, we then correctly may discern the Lord’s assertion that “power is perfected in weakness.” In terms of a non-Christian idea of weakness, such a statement declares the Yin and Yang give and take of mutually opposing - and mutually necessary - forces. This view holds that power has no existence apart from weakness, for apart from weakness power could not be known to be power. In terms of a Christian idea of weakness, this statement means something very different. The reason that God’s grace is sufficient is not because Paul’s weakness is a prerequisite for the reality of God’s power. God’s grace is sufficient because God’s power is omnipotent in the universe. The idea that God’s power is “perfected” in weakness means that weakness simply constitutes a further occasion of the exercise of His power. God’s power is at work in any case, just as it was in original creation, when everything was “very good.” The corruption of everything in sin cannot skew God’s power from His course or objective. Corruption simply constitutes an occasion for the greater exercise of power in overcoming a rebellion against God’s course and objective. This hardly makes weakness necessary for the realization of God’s will. Paul can say “when I am weak, then I am strong” as a concise expression of the truth that when weakness has neutralized the best that fallen human power may achieve, then accomplishment of God’s will may be credited only to the power of God’s grace at work in us.
The missing factor in Mr. Warren’s exposition is sin. This has been the missing factor from the beginning. If sin properly had been taken into account, Mr. Warren never would have suggested that we might look within ourselves, “listen to our hearts” (p. 237), and thereby discern what we might do in service to God. For, taking sin into account would have precluded natural ability and natural inclination being esteemed automatic indicators of godliness. Lacking this proper understanding, Mr. Warren attempted to make natural ability and natural inclination (he called it HEART) everything. But soon it became apparent that this was impractical, because if everyone is out following their HEART, it leaves no one to collect the trash or to stack the chairs. So, compensating for this discrepancy, he then suggested that weakness is everything instead. But here again the factor of sin is not taken into account. For Mr. Warren, weakness is simply a “limitation.” Now, instead of our abilities pointing the way to godly ministry, it is our weaknesses that point the way, and weakness is exhibited in pain and failure and hurt. If sin properly had been taken into account, Mr. Warren never would have declared, “Your greatest life messages and your most effective ministry will come out of your deepest hurts.” (p. 275) Properly taking sin into account would have shown weakness to be basically the consequence of defect. A truly biblical approach to these things views our natural abilities as God-given but corrupted in sin, and views our weaknesses as stemming from this same corruption. We cannot implicitly trust in our abilities or “listen to our heart.” Neither can we “glory in our weaknesses.” These ideas form a perpetual tension in which each requires the other (due to the irresolvable errors in each) and in which they never can be systematically united. The only systematically coherent outlook is the truly biblical Christian idea of God, the Creator, who made Man in His own image, and of Man, who fell into sin and corruption, and of redemption in Christ, in which our interests and abilities are redeemed through the power of His grace in our lives.
posted by S. C. Mooney at 8:25 PM
0 comments
